New Zealand secondary technology teachers’ perceptions: “technological” or “technical” thinking?

  • Elizabeth ReinsfieldEmail author
  • P. John Williams


Technology education in the New Zealand context has seen significant change since it’s inception as a technical subject. The changing nature of the subject in New Zealand secondary schools is influenced by some teachers’ preoccupation with the making of quality product outcomes, rather than their enactment of the curriculum, which conceptualises a wider remit. Research into the perceptions of technology teachers’ interpretation and enactment of the curriculum suggests that to enable change, teachers need to adopt a form of “technological thinking”, in support of their “technical thinking”. Technological thinking is a notion presented to support teachers to explore a range of differing pedagogical approaches and learning outcomes, reflective of the intent of the New Zealand curriculum, which aims to foster learning environments that are innovative and responsive to students’ social and academic needs.


Curriculum interpretation and enactment Innovative and responsive learning environments Pedagogical approaches Teacher perceptions Technological and technical thinking Senior secondary schooling 


  1. Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Casey, D., & Houghton, C. (2010). Clarifying case study research: Examples from practice. Nurse Researcher, 17(3), 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ellsworth, E. (1997). Teaching positions: Difference, pedagogy and the power of address. New York: Teachers College Press. Retrieved from
  4. Ferguson, E. S. (1993). Engineering and the mind’s eye. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hill, A. M. (2003). An analysis of the debate: Has the study of technology a vocational or academic purpose? In J. R. Drakers & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Pupils attitudes toward technology: Thirteenth international conference on design and technology (pp. 87–92). Glasgow: University of Glasgow, Faculty of Education.Google Scholar
  6. Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand [IPENZ] (2001). The role of technology education in New Zealand’s future prosperity. Retrieved from
  7. Johnson, E. M. (2013). “Previously I thought writing was writing”: Reflections on doctoral writing spaces. In S. Frielick, N. Buissink-Smith, P. Wyse, J. Billot, J. Hallas, & E. Whitehead (Eds.), Research and development in higher education: The place of learning and teaching (Vol. 36, pp. 233–242). Milperra, NSW: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.Google Scholar
  8. Jones, A., Harlow, A., & Cowie, B. (2004). New Zealand teachers’ experiences in implementing the technology curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 101–119. doi: 10.1023/B:ITDE.0000026549.08795.9e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lather, P. (1998). Critical pedagogy and its complicities: A Praxis of Stuck Places. Educational Theory, 48(4), 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mansell, H. L., Harold, B. D., Hawksworth, L. J., & Thrupp, M. P. (2001). The perceived impact of the technology curriculum. Set, 1, 23–28.Google Scholar
  11. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practicing. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Theory and practice ten years on (pp. 412–424). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.Google Scholar
  12. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2006). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Issues of liminality. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 19–32). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  16. Ministry of Education. (2015). Innovative learning environments. Retrieved from
  17. Ministry of Education. (2016). Trades Academies. Retrieved from
  18. Ministry of Education (MoE, 2010). Technology curriculum support. Retrieved from technology. Retrieved from support-oct-10.pdfGoogle Scholar
  19. Ministry of Education (MoE). (2011). The New Zealand school property strategy, 2011–2021. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  20. New Zealand Immigration (2016). Skills shortages. Retrieved from
  21. O’ Brien, L., Alison, J., & Cross, B. (2006). Technology: Theory without practice?. Wellington: New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association.Google Scholar
  22. Oblinger, D. (2007). Why today’s students’ value authentic learning. In Educase Learning Initiative: Advancing Learning Through IT Innovation. ELI Paper 9.Google Scholar
  23. Osborne, M. (2016). Innovative learning environments. CORE Education White paper. Retrieved from
  24. Pacey, A. (1992). The maze of ingenuity: Ideas and idealism in the development of technology (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Paechter, C. (1995). Sub-cultural retreat: Negotiating the design and technology curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peter, M., Harlow, A., Scott, J. B., McKie, D., Johnson, E. M., Moffat, K., & McKim, A. M. (2014). Threshold concepts: Impacts on teaching and learning at tertiary level. In Commission Report for Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (pp. 1–21).Google Scholar
  27. Reinsfield, E. (2014). Secondary school technology education in New Zealand: Does it do what it says on the box? Teachers and Curriculum, 14(1), 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reinsfield, E. (2016). A future focus for teaching and learning: Technology education in two New Zealand Schools. Teachers and Curriculum, 16, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Snape, P., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2013). Perspectives of authenticity: Implementation in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 51–68. doi: 10.1007/s10798-011-9168-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stevenson, J. R., Chang-Richards, Y., Conradson, D., Wilkinson, S., Vargo, J., Seville, E., et al. (2014). Organizational networks and recovery following the Canterbury Earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra, 30(1), 555–575. doi: 10.1193/022013EQS041MR.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tertiary Education Commission (2014). Youth guarantee. Retrieved from
  33. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Young, M. F. D. (1998). The curriculum of the future: From the ‘New sociology of education’ to a critical theory of learning. London: Routledge Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Curtin UniversityBentleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations